130 Conn. App. 211
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Paragon Construction sued the Department of Public Works and the Department of Correction for unpaid work on the Cheshire Correctional Center renovation.
- Paragon entered a public works contract as general contractor and later subcontracted MacKenzie Painting to de-lead and paint security bars.
- Disputes arose over payment for de-leading and delays; Paragon asserted breach of contract and unjust enrichment (counts one and two).
- The first motion to dismiss (sovereign immunity) was denied, with the court finding § 4-61(a) potentially satisfied.
- After discovery, a second motion to dismiss asserted lack of § 4-61(a) applicability; the court denied as to count one but not count two is discussed on appeal.
- On appeal, the supreme question was whether § 4-61(a) waives immunity for (i) the de-leading payment claim, and (ii) the unjust enrichment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph seven asserts a 'disputed claim' under §4-61(a). | Paragon owns the claim against the state, not MacKenzie. | The claim belongs to MacKenzie, not Paragon. | Paragraph seven suffices; disputed factual issues require a hearing. |
| Whether Paragon's unjust enrichment claim falls within §4-61(a). | Claim directly flows from the contract and is within the waiver. | Unjust enrichment is not a claim under the contract; not within §4-61(a). | Unjust enrichment claim does not fit §4-61(a); motion to dismiss granted as to count two. |
| Proper standard for evaluating jurisdiction under Practice Book § 10-31(a)(1) in a sovereign-immunity motion. | Jurisdiction should be considered in light of the complaint and undisputed facts favorable to Paragon. | Supplemented undisputed facts may show lack of jurisdiction; court may dismiss. | Court properly applied the jurisdictional framework; unresolved factual disputes require a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Peabody, N.E., Inc., 239 Conn. 93 (1996) (clarifies 'disputed claim' under 4-61(a) and where liability lies)
- Dept. of Public Works v. ECAP Construction Co., 250 Conn. 553 (1999) (definition of 'under' the contract and narrow scope of 4-61(a))
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (2009) (necessity of evidentiary hearing when jurisdiction hinges on contested facts)
- 184 Windsor Avenue, LLC v. State, 274 Conn. 302 (2005) (permissible scope of 4-61(a) for public works disputes)